Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses the authentication requirement (Schnorr signature) and implies the tool is read-only via 'Retrieve'. Since no annotations are provided, this is sufficient behavioral context, though it could mention that it does not modify state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, minimal waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the gating condition and the core retrieval. However, the missing explanation for dpop_token slightly reduces completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions (npub has a description, dpop_token does not). The main description adds no extra parameter information; it only implies npub's role. The dpop_token parameter remains unexplained, a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Retrieve operator bootstrap configuration (Neon URL, schema)', specifying both the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like authority_operator_status or authority_get_operator_onboarding_status by targeting the bootstrap config specifically.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description mentions the gating condition ('Gated by Schnorr signature proving ownership of the requested npub'), which implicitly guides when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives among the many sibling tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.